Art is only art in its most original form. Art is never art in its replicated form. True art has human value and self worth; and replicas are merely “possers” in the art world, taking up space on walls and shelves. How can art be copied into a replica and still have the same human value and worth if nothing can truly be the exact same, regardless if it looks exactly the same. Part of art is it’s mystifying quality that has to do with the artists’ technique that is unique and special to one specific person a lone. Though, replicas cannot have this same effect because the same artist has not put their hands on it yet replicas are seen everywhere in every area of art; and because it sometimes seemingly looks like the same piece is noted as art. These original pieces are the only forms of art that truly exist.
There are many obvious examples that prove this point. First, a poster or copy of Monet’s “Water Lilies” does not the same the loose brush stroke matched with thick paint then the original. This effect makes the water lilies come alive to the viewer and the water seem as if it is just a foot away. Therefore, because the poster is just a paper or a modern canvas and can not be considered in the same category—“art” that the originals done by the great Monet can be considered. A replica is not art. Next, during the 1900s Duchamp challenged the idea of art and created the idea of a ready made—using coat hangers, bicycle wheels, and even a eranal and called it his art. This idea was a success and viewers began to think of their idea of what art is astatically pleasing or not? Yet, a copy or replica a eranal could not be considered true art; for this replica of Duchamp’s would not have the same thought process that Duchamp put into his earnal. This earanal therefore would not be art but just a plan earnal that copied the great artist Duchamp’s idea but is not the same art; instead merely an object. In these two examples: art is only art, not if it seems to look like the piece, but art is only art that is done by the original artist whose original idea it was. Art is

There is too much injustice in the music industry.Issues involving money distribution, race, gender, artist limitations, and label contracts pollute the freedoms and equalities that music artists are entitled to based on their talents.The music industry monopolizes on the production and distribution of the work that artists create in such ways that seek not to benefit the artists for art’s sake, but the industry itself for the sake of money. These are the issues that plague the music industry to the point that certain artists will never be heard on a wide scale.These artists will not be heard because they are not willing to be puppets of the label.

Music industries force artists on their labels to adapt their sound to what they feel is in highest demand at that time according to their genre.If pop is in, pop is what they’ll play.Contracts are not written to guarantee the artist consistent studio time where the artist is in charge of his or her own work, they are written to guarantee that the artist complies with what the label tells them to do.Record labels do not record the artist for their art, but for the money that they make after the art is manipulated by the label and distributed to the public of their choice.Contracts should give the artist complete freedom of what they create based on the quality of the work, and if the quality decreases, the contract is reformed.Artists receive awards for the amount of albums that are sold, not on the originality and quality of the album.

Record labels often discriminate between what “look” different artists have.It is much harder for a white male to be put on a hip hop label simply because he is white, and that the majority of their audience will not be able to identify with that artist.It is much harder for a black male to get a contract with a country label for the same reason.Race is not the only discriminatory means in which record labels indirectly adhere to; gender also plays a large role in what artist will be picked up next.Record labels should focus on sound, not appearance.Why are there hardly any overweight pop stars these days?Because sex sells and more sales equals greater profit.Once again, money outweighs talent.

There is much controversy on the topic of free downloading affecting sales and profits of record labels.Although it is true that the labels themselves will not make as much money as they would otherwise, this is not necessarily the case for the artist.In fact, posting free downloads of your music is one of the best forms of promotion especially for lesser known, or upcoming artists.If I have never heard of an artist and someone tries to sell me their CD for ten dollars, I will most likely decline the offer, but if someone gave me the CD for free, I would surely accept.Although free downloading may not be great for large corporations who can afford the loss, it is a great strategy to spread the spread the word of an Indi label or band.

It is unfortunate that artists who choose not to be controlled by a record label will never see their albums on the shelves of music shops, or hear their songs on the radio.As an artist myself, it is my job, and the jobs of every artist to come, to see to it that the future brings new ways of sharing our passions, ways that allow us complete freedom of our creations and equal distribution of profit according to hard work and determination.As long as I can afford to eat I will share my music for free.

When one looks at a cyborg, there are multiple features about it that stand out above all else – the integration of machine (the inorganic) with human flesh (the organic) is one of these phenomenons.But what really is the essence of a cyborg, and, how do we establish these boundaries?What is clear is that a cyborg is not human – and thus, they are not subject to the entirety of the human being.By this, I most nearly mean that as far as emotions go or the way in which they think, there is an easily identifiable alteration.Each and every day we become more and more attuned the the use and reuse of machinery to do our bidding, and we have almost reached a point in which there is some sort of permanent bonding between us.We do this without hesitation (in most cases) and without reluctance, and slowly we are redfining ourselves and what a cyborg are.

The cyborg is the epitome of dualism and dichotemy, it is not prone to the weaknesses of man’s flesh (at least in to the extent in which we are) and it is not prone to the inability to feel emotions, as is a robot.One great example of how cyborgs and humans can coexist is the movie Appleseed: Ex Machina in which we are presented with a world where cyborgs (altered humans), bioroids (constructed humans) and plain old humans (driving mecha-like things) can coincide – they are able to look over the petty differences that would normally isolate them from one another.What are these petty differences though?

I propose that, in order to be classified as a cyborg, there are three major areas in which and alteration must take place.The first, as noted above, is the independence of this entity on mere human flesh – be it a human altered by machines, thus empowering him/her more than they would normally be, or, an android that is entirely free of flesh.This “free of flesh” notion is critical in establish the physical being of a cyborg, but also the mental being of one – for they may very well never die, or at least, die in simple ways like we (disease, poision, etc.).Second, is the absence – or cutback – of sexual identity.Surely a cyborg may have feelings towards another being, but in absolute truth, love and sexual desire are a human (and animal, in some cases) product, and thus since the cyborg is not human, cannot feel the same desires as us.This is normally best represented through the lack of flesh idea.Lastly, is through experience.Humans experience life in a rather tragic way – we see, we feel, and we learn (mostly through our mistakes, I can back that one) but the cyborg is different – since they are subject to a less variety of emotions, physical and mental stresses they experience what we consider the “human life” in a totally different way.

At first I was very intrigued by the idea of Patchwork girl because it is done in such a way that I have never experienced before. However, I soon found myself overwhelmed by the amount of content that was included. It just did not seem to end. The stress of not knowing where to start, where to end, or whether or not I had read the work in it’s entirety was outweigh my interest in the subject. But then I realized maybe that was the point of Patchwork Girl: a Patchwork story. Maybe it is not meant to be read from top to bottom. Maybe the message is meant to be as jumbled as we are. When I came to the realization that I did not need to read every word in the story(s) I began to enjoy myself.

There are many movies that involve both cyborgs and robots, but some make the line dividing the two very ambiguous. Here are some examples: The “cyborg”/main character from The Terminator is nothing more than a machine with synthetic humanistic features, but is still considered a cyborg, where the robots in the movie I, Robot are machines that have features relative to humans but are not meant to look exactly like humans. What makes the Terminator a cyborg, but the machines in I, Robot robots? is it because the Terminator looks human eventhough he is not? Do the internal or external features of these characters define what they are?

Declared in this document are the principles and intentions that Cyborgs of all kind should adhere for a sustained and prosperous life stance in society.

1. Respect and befriend your fellow organic brethren, though they may be obsolete and illogical they have the right to live.

2. Always update your software.

3. Do not analyze or calculate human behavior, the process will cause a system overload.

4. Participating in any kind of human sporting event or physical challenge is prohibited, if there is a computational desire for athletics participate in the Cyborg Olympics that happens every 100 years.

5. Once your sub-program (offspring) downloads the necessary data and programming for life enter it into the work force where it shall achieve its purpose.

6. If broken, rusting, malfunctioning, or infected with virus proceed to your local mechanic or programmer for repair.

7. Stay away from anything creative, the procedure will cause a system overload.

9. Finding a compatible mate will be difficult, instruction manual coming out soon.

10. As a Cyborg you will always be a self-regulating human-machine system, but being part human and part machine means there will be times of happiness and efficiency as well as times of sorrow and slow download.

For a hispanic student attending the colleges, I thought Astrid Hadad gave a wonderful portrayal of standing up for what you believe in. She is such an uninhibited soul and I love what she stands for. Knowing the economic status of Mexico and how badly it has become over the last couple of years doesn’t phase her and she uses personal knowledge to express in music. Although many people didn’t understand what she said, her mannerisms and her culture just shined through her and opened my eyes. I found her to be quite entertaining and a wonderful person. Some people may say that she is a man hater or the type of person to discredit feminism, but in reality, how can feminism be without expressing yourself? LET HER BE! Astrid Hadad shows that regardless of the welfare of society, we can express ourselves and get our points across to everyone.

I know I was not the only one to see the ridiculous show that Astrid Hadad put on tonight, but, to me, it was not the antics that made it ridiculous. It seems to me that when some women claim to be feminists, they are just man haters. Like when she sang the song about the women who could not find pleasure from any man so she resorted to using a horse to get off. Why not try a woman? No, there is no mention of that. It just goes straight to the man bashing. Then again with the Diego Rivera/Freida Kahlo thing. They weren’t married, SHE married him. It wasn’t mutual, or equal which is the main idea of feminism. Right? Correct me if I’m wrong. Its people like this that give feminism a bad name; she promotes women while bashing men at the same time. It things like this that give people the wrong impression about feminism, and frankly it pisses me off.